Saving clause preserves subordinate order after repeal, validating prosecution and limiting Article 136 interference.

A saving clause that clearly continues an order made under a repealed parent statute, and also preserves appointments, licences, permits and directions issued under it, keeps that order enforceable after repeal; on that construction, the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948 survived the repeal of the 1946 Act and prosecution under it was valid. The Court also noted that, because the offence was old, the issues had been viewed differently below, and the matter had become stale, it would not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136, so interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948 survived the repeal of the 1946 Act by virtue of the saving provisions in the Ordinance and the 1955 Act, and the prosecution under the order was valid; (ii) Whether interference was warranted in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948 survived the repeal of the 1946 Act by virtue of the saving provisions in the Ordinance and the 1955 Act, and the prosecution under the order was valid.

Analysis: The saving provision in the Ordinance continued in force any order made under the repealed 1946 Act if such order could be made under the Ordinance, and it also preserved appointments, licences, permits, and directions issued under such order. The language was held to be clear and unambiguous, and the two parts of the provision were read together so that both the order and the acts done under it were saved. The corresponding saving provision in the 1955 Act was treated as a repetition of the same scheme, and the expression "any other law" in the repeal clause was held not to include an order made under the Ordinance itself.

Conclusion: The order remained operative and the prosecution under it was valid; this issue was decided against the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether interference was warranted in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The offence was old, the lower courts had taken differing views, and there was a plausible basis for the belief that the order had lapsed. The matter was also considered stale, and public interest was not thought to require reopening it. In these circumstances, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary power.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the appeal was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The saving provisions preserved the order after repeal, but the Court ultimately declined to interfere in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, leaving the prosecution intact at the trial level and the respondents successful in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a saving clause clearly continues a pre-existing order and also preserves acts done under it, the order remains enforceable notwithstanding the repeal of the parent enactment, and a later repeal clause does not undo that continuation unless the statutory language clearly so provides.

---